Mobility Metrics for Northampton, Pennsylvania

These Mobility Metrics Data Tables are designed to help local leaders in every county and over 450 cities measure their communities’ status and progress towards increasing upward mobility and equity.

The Urban Institute’s Upward Mobility Framework identifies predictors that are strongly correlated with the likelihood that a community’s residents will be able to boost economic and social mobility from poverty. These predictors reflect five essential pillars that support upward mobility.



Pillar: Opportunity-Rich & Inclusive Neighborhoods

Predictor: Housing Affordability

Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households 169.9 156.4 142.7 152.5
Ratio for very low-income households 143.6 127.2 97.7 132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households 113.9 90.8 56.3 73.5
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households 169.9 156.4 142.7 152.5
Ratio for very low-income households 143.6 127.2 97.7 132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households 113.9 90.8 56.3 73.5
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: This metric reports the number of housing units affordable for households with low-incomes (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-incomes (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-incomes (below 30 percent of AMI) relative to every 100 households with these income levels. Income groups are defined for a local family of 4. Housing units are defined as affordable if the monthly costs do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Values above 100 suggest that there are more affordable housing units than households with those income levels. Values below 100 indicate a shortage of affordable housing for households with those income levels. Housing units are counted as affordable for a given income level regardless of whether they are currently occupied by a household at that income level.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households 2021 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3
Ratio for very low-income households 2021 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3
Ratio for extremely low-income households 2021 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Ratio for low-income households 2018 169.9 156.4 142.7 152.5
Ratio for very low-income households 2018 143.6 127.2 97.7 132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households 2018 113.9 90.8 56.3 73.5
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2018 & FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: This metric reports the number of housing units affordable for households with low-incomes (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-incomes (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-incomes (below 30 percent of AMI) relative to every 100 households with these income levels. Income groups are defined for a local family of 4. Housing units are defined as affordable if the monthly costs do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Values above 100 suggest that there are more affordable housing units than households with those income levels. Values below 100 indicate a shortage of affordable housing for households with those income levels. Housing units are counted as affordable for a given income level regardless of whether they are currently occupied by a household at that income level.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Housing stability

Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless 800 940 3,262 1,145
Share homeless 1.7% 1.1% 2.1% 0.9%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time period: School Year 2019-20)



Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless 800 940 3,262 1,145
Lower/Upper bound (799, 801) (940, 940) (3,260, 3,264) (1,142, 1,148)
Share homeless 1.7% 1.1% 2.1% 0.9%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time period: School Year 2019-20)
Notes: The number of homeless students is based on the number of children (age 3 through 12th grade) who are enrolled in public schools and whose primary nighttime residence at any time during a school year was a shelter, transitional housing, or awaiting foster care placement; unsheltered (e.g., a car, park, campground, temporary trailer, or abandoned building); a hotel or motel because of the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; or in housing of other people because of loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. The share is the percent of public-school students who are experiencing homelessness out of all public-school students.



Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless 2021 1,234 1,234 1,234 1,234
Lower/Upper bound 2021 (123, 12,345) (123, 12,345) (123, 12,345) (123, 12,345)
Share homeless 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Number homeless 2018 800 940 3,262 1,145
Lower/Upper bound 2018 (799, 801) (940, 940) (3,260, 3,264) (1,142, 1,148)
Share homeless 2018 1.7% 1.1% 2.1% 0.9%
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2018-19 & SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time periods: School Years 2018-19 & 2019-20)
Notes: The number of homeless students is based on the number of children (age 3 through 12th grade) who are enrolled in public schools and whose primary nighttime residence at any time during a school year was a shelter, transitional housing, or awaiting foster care placement; unsheltered (e.g., a car, park, campground, temporary trailer, or abandoned building); a hotel or motel because of the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; or in housing of other people because of loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. The share is the percent of public-school students who are experiencing homelessness out of all public-school students. Data disaggregated by race/ethnicity became available for the first time in SY 2019-20.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Economic inclusion

Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods 11.8% 0.0% 9.5% 10.7%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)


Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods 11.8% 0.0% 9.5% 10.7%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a city’s or county’s residents living in poverty who also live in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts). A high-poverty neighborhood is one in which over 40 percent of the residents live in poverty. People and families are classified as being in poverty if their income (before taxes and excluding capital gains or noncash benefits) is less than their poverty threshold, as defined by the US Census Bureau. Poverty thresholds vary by the size of the family and age of its members and are updated for inflation, but do not vary geographically.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods All 2021 11.8% 0.0% 9.5% 10.7%
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Black 2021 9.7% 0.0% 8.3% 16.3%
Quality Black 2021 Marginal Marginal Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Hispanic 2021 22.8% 0.0% 4.7% 14.1%
Quality Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 14.2% 0.0% 13.0% 12.4%
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods White, Non-Hispanic 2021 5.0% 0.0% 12.6% 3.2%
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods All 2018 11.8% 0.0% 9.5% 10.7%
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Black 2018 9.7% 0.0% 8.3% 16.3%
Quality Black 2018 Marginal Marginal Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Hispanic 2018 22.8% 0.0% 4.7% 14.1%
Quality Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 14.2% 0.0% 13.0% 12.4%
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods White, Non-Hispanic 2018 5.0% 0.0% 12.6% 3.2%
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a city’s or county’s residents living in poverty who also live in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts). A high-poverty neighborhood is one in which over 40 percent of the residents live in poverty. People and families are classified as being in poverty if their income (before taxes and excluding capital gains or noncash benefits) is less than their poverty threshold, as defined by the US Census Bureau. Poverty thresholds vary by the size of the family and age of its members and are updated for inflation, but do not vary geographically.

’Black’ includes Black Hispanics. ‘Other Races and Ethnicities’ includes those of races not explicitly listed and those of multiple races. Those who identify as other race or multiple races and Hispanic are counted in both the ‘Hispanic’ and ’Other Races and Ethnicities’ categories.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Racial diversity

Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic 90.5% 89.7% 85.1% 62.8%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 73.1% 89.7% 52.6% 61.9%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities 92.1% 89.8% 85.1% 86.6%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic 18.4% 14.0% 40.3% 25.1%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)


Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic 90.5% 89.7% 85.1% 62.8%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 73.1% 89.7% 52.6% 61.9%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities 92.1% 89.8% 85.1% 86.6%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic 18.4% 14.0% 40.3% 25.1%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: A set of metrics constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the average share of that group’s neighbors who are members of other racial/ethnic groups. This is a type of exposure index. For example, an exposure index of 90.0% in the ‘% for Black, Non-Hispanic’ row means that the average Black, non-Hispanic resident has 90.0% of their neighbors within a census tract who have a different race/ethnicity than them. The higher the value, the more exposed to people of different races/ethnicities.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for White, Non-Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 90.5% 89.7% 85.1% 62.8%
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 2018 73.1% 89.7% 52.6% 61.9%
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 92.1% 89.8% 85.1% 86.6%
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic 2018 18.4% 14.0% 40.3% 25.1%
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: A set of metrics constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the average share of that group’s neighbors who are members of other racial/ethnic groups. This is a type of exposure index. For example, an exposure index of 90.0% in the ‘% for Black, Non-Hispanic’ row means that the average Black, non-Hispanic resident has 90.0% of their neighbors within a census tract who have a different race/ethnicity than them. The higher the value, the more exposed to people of different races/ethnicities.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Social Capital

Metric: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Membership associations 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns Survey, 2020 and Population Estimation Program, 2016-20; Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2016-20)


Metric: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Membership associations 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns Survey, 2020 and Population Estimation Program, 2016-20; Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the number of membership associations (as self-reported by businesses and organizations) per 10,000 people in a given community.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Social Capital

Metric: Ratio of Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Economic connectedness 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, 2022. (Time period: 2022)


Metric: Ratio of Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Economic connectedness 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, 2022. (Time period: 2022)
Notes: This measures the interconnectivity, by location, between people from different economic backgrounds to estimate “economic connectedness.” Specifically, the metric is twice the average share of high-socioeconomic status (SES) friends (e.g., individuals from households ranked in the top half of all income-earning households) among low-SES individuals (e.g., individuals from households ranked in the lower half of all US households based on income) in a given community. A metric value of 1 represents a community that is perfectly integrated across socioeconomic status, with half of all low-SES individuals’ friends being of high-SES.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Transportation access

Metric: Transit trips index
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transit trips 41.5 57.3 73.4 64.9
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)


Metric: Transit trips index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transit trips 41.5 57.3 73.4 64.9
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Notes: The number of public transit trips taken annually by a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the Area Median Income for renters. Values are percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100 for each census tract. To get a value for the community, we generate a population-weighted average of census tracts within the community. The higher the value, the more likely residents utilize public transit in the community.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Transit trips index+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transit trips All 2021 41.5 57.3 73.4 64.9
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips Majority Non-White Tracts 2021 58.1 64.9 75.1 80.1
Quality Majority Non-White Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2021 35.2 56.0 69.4 52.7
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2021 56.5 65.8 74.2 62.4
Quality No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips All 2018 41.5 57.3 73.4 64.9
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 58.1 64.9 75.1 80.1
Quality Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 35.2 56.0 69.4 52.7
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transit trips No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 56.5 65.8 74.2 62.4
Quality No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2016 & 2018 Location Affordability Index data using 2013-15 & 2020-22 Illinois vehicle miles travelled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2013 & 2014 & 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2017-21)
Notes: The number of public transit trips taken annually by a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the Area Median Income for renters. Values are percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100 for each census tract. To get a value for the community, we generate a population-weighted average of census tracts within the community. The higher the value, the more likely residents utilize public transit in the community.

‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Transportation cost index
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transportation cost 65.8 67.4 78.5 83.1
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)


Metric: Transportation cost index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transportation cost 65.8 67.4 78.5 83.1
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Notes: Reflects local transportation costs as a share of renters’ incomes. It accounts for both transit and cars. This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person, single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., core-based statistical area). Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Transportation cost index+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Transportation cost All 2021 65.8 67.4 78.5 83.1
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost Majority Non-White Tracts 2021 80.1 78.4 78.3 90.0
Quality Majority Non-White Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2021 60.2 65.8 76.3 76.5
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2021 79.6 77.4 81.9 84.6
Quality No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost All 2018 65.8 67.4 78.5 83.1
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 80.1 78.4 78.3 90.0
Quality Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 60.2 65.8 76.3 76.5
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Transportation cost No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 79.6 77.4 81.9 84.6
Quality No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2016 & 2018 Location Affordability Index data using 2013-15 & 2020-22 Illinois vehicle miles travelled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2013 & 2014 & 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2017-21)
Notes: Reflects local transportation costs as a share of renters’ incomes. It accounts for both transit and cars. This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person, single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., core-based statistical area). Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

’Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Pillar: High-Quality Education

Predictor: Access to preschool

Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten 43.0% 55.3% 49.8% 56.3%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)


Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten 43.0% 55.3% 49.8% 56.3%
Confidence Interval (28.4%, 57.6%) (45.1%, 65.4%) (43.8%, 55.8%) (48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a community’s children aged three to four who are enrolled in nursery or preschool.


Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten All 2021 43.0% 55.3% 49.8% 56.3%
Confidence Interval All 2021 (28.4%, 57.6%) (45.1%, 65.4%) (43.8%, 55.8%) (48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA 45.6% 75.2%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA (34.6%, 56.7%) (67.1%, 83.4%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA Weak Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Hispanic 2021 34.8% NA 36.6% 49.8%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2021 (21.2%, 48.5%) NA (32.4%, 40.7%) (42.9%, 56.6%)
Quality Hispanic 2021 Weak NA Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA 54.4% 56.0% 59.7%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA (39.1%, 69.6%) (48.0%, 64.0%) (50.5%, 68.8%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA Weak Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten White, Non-Hispanic 2021 50.9% 54.4% 61.5% 66.5%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2021 (43.0%, 58.7%) (49.5%, 59.3%) (57.5%, 65.5%) (62.0%, 71.0%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten All 2018 43.0% 55.3% 49.8% 56.3%
Confidence Interval All 2018 (28.4%, 57.6%) (45.1%, 65.4%) (43.8%, 55.8%) (48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA 45.6% 75.2%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA (34.6%, 56.7%) (67.1%, 83.4%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA Weak Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Hispanic 2018 34.8% NA 36.6% 49.8%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2018 (21.2%, 48.5%) NA (32.4%, 40.7%) (42.9%, 56.6%)
Quality Hispanic 2018 Weak NA Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA 54.4% 56.0% 59.7%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA (39.1%, 69.6%) (48.0%, 64.0%) (50.5%, 68.8%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA Weak Strong Strong
% Pre-kindergarten White, Non-Hispanic 2018 50.9% 54.4% 61.5% 66.5%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2018 (43.0%, 58.7%) (49.5%, 59.3%) (57.5%, 65.5%) (62.0%, 71.0%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a community’s children aged three to four who are enrolled in nursery or preschool.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Effective public education

Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Quality Strong Strong Strong Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Year 2017-18)


Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Lower/Upper bound (0.87, 0.97) (0.99, 1.08) (0.94, 0.99) (1.03, 1.20)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Year 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.


Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement All 2021 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Lower/Upper bound All 2021 (0.87, 0.97) (0.99, 1.08) (0.94, 0.99) (1.03, 1.20)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 0.90 1.10 1.02 1.09
Lower/Upper bound Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 (0.77, 1.04) (0.87, 1.33) (0.95, 1.08) (0.92, 1.25)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Marginal Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Hispanic 2021 0.92 1.01 0.91 1.12
Lower/Upper bound Hispanic 2021 (0.81, 1.04) (0.87, 1.16) (0.89, 0.94) (0.98, 1.26)
Quality Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement White, Non-Hispanic 2021 0.92 1.03 1.03 1.15
Lower/Upper bound White, Non-Hispanic 2021 (0.86, 0.97) (0.98, 1.07) (0.98, 1.07) (1.05, 1.25)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement All 2018 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Lower/Upper bound All 2018 (0.87, 0.97) (0.99, 1.08) (0.94, 0.99) (1.03, 1.20)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 0.90 1.10 1.02 1.09
Lower/Upper bound Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 (0.77, 1.04) (0.87, 1.33) (0.95, 1.08) (0.92, 1.25)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Marginal Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Hispanic 2018 0.92 1.01 0.91 1.12
Lower/Upper bound Hispanic 2018 (0.81, 1.04) (0.87, 1.16) (0.89, 0.94) (0.98, 1.26)
Quality Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement White, Non-Hispanic 2018 0.92 1.03 1.03 1.15
Lower/Upper bound White, Non-Hispanic 2018 (0.86, 0.97) (0.98, 1.07) (0.98, 1.07) (1.05, 1.25)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2016-17 & SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Years 2016-17 & 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.

Research suggests that annual improvement in English for Hispanic children will exceed those of White, Non-Hispanic children because Hispanic children, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills.

Research suggests that annual improvement in English for students in low-income or economically disadvantaged households will exceed those of non-economically disadvantaged households because students in less advantaged households, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills. ‘Low-income’ means students are determined to be eligible for their schools’ free and reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program.
Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement All 2021 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Lower/Upper bound All 2021 (0.87, 0.97) (0.99, 1.08) (0.94, 0.99) (1.03, 1.20)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Low Income 2021 0.94 1.00 0.91 1.15
Lower/Upper bound Low Income 2021 (0.85, 1.03) (0.92, 1.09) (0.88, 0.94) (1.03, 1.27)
Quality Low Income 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Not Low-Income 2021 0.94 1.07 0.98 1.27
Lower/Upper bound Not Low-Income 2021 (0.88, 1.00) (1.02, 1.12) (0.94, 1.02) (1.07, 1.47)
Quality Not Low-Income 2021 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement All 2018 0.92 1.04 0.96 1.12
Lower/Upper bound All 2018 (0.87, 0.97) (0.99, 1.08) (0.94, 0.99) (1.03, 1.20)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Low Income 2018 0.94 1.00 0.91 1.15
Lower/Upper bound Low Income 2018 (0.85, 1.03) (0.92, 1.09) (0.88, 0.94) (1.03, 1.27)
Quality Low Income 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Annual ELA achievement Not Low-Income 2018 0.94 1.07 0.98 1.27
Lower/Upper bound Not Low-Income 2018 (0.88, 1.00) (1.02, 1.12) (0.94, 1.02) (1.07, 1.47)
Quality Not Low-Income 2018 Strong Strong Strong Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2016-17 & SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Years 2016-17 & 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.

Research suggests that annual improvement in English for Hispanic children will exceed those of White, Non-Hispanic children because Hispanic children, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills.

Research suggests that annual improvement in English for students in low-income or economically disadvantaged households will exceed those of non-economically disadvantaged households because students in less advantaged households, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills. ‘Low-income’ means students are determined to be eligible for their schools’ free and reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: School economic diversity

Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic 38.6% 16.3% 21.4% 28.5%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic 63.1% 54.3% 78.6% 82.2%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 69.3% 43.3% 79.9% 79.7%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time period: School Year 2018-19)


Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic 38.6% 16.3% 21.4% 28.5%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic 63.1% 54.3% 78.6% 82.2%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 69.3% 43.3% 79.9% 79.7%
Quality Strong Weak Strong Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time period: School Year 2018-19)
Notes: This set of metrics is constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the share of students attending schools in which over 20 percent of students come from households earning at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for Black, non-Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for Hispanic 2021 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% for White, non-Hispanic 2018 38.6% 16.3% 21.4% 28.5%
Quality 2018 Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic 2018 63.1% 54.3% 78.6% 82.2%
Quality 2018 Strong Weak Strong Strong
% for Hispanic 2018 69.3% 43.3% 79.9% 79.7%
Quality 2018 Strong Weak Strong Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2017-18 & 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time periods: School Years 2017-18 & 2018-19)
Notes: This set of metrics is constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the share of students attending schools in which over 20 percent of students come from households earning at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Preparation for college

Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree 90.7% 94.0% 90.8% 89.9%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)


Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree 90.7% 94.0% 90.8% 89.9%
Confidence Interval (82.5%, 98.9%) (88.7%, 99.4%) (87.1%, 94.6%) (85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of 19- and 20-year-olds in a community who have a high school degree.


Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree All 2021 90.7% 94.0% 90.8% 89.9%
Confidence Interval All 2021 (82.5%, 98.9%) (88.7%, 99.4%) (87.1%, 94.6%) (85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% HS degree Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA 94.8% 89.9%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA (89.4%, 100.0%) (84.0%, 95.8%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 NA NA Weak Strong
% HS degree Hispanic 2021 82.7% NA 85.0% 77.2%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2021 (72.5%, 92.9%) NA (81.5%, 88.5%) (70.9%, 83.5%)
Quality Hispanic 2021 Weak NA Strong Strong
% HS degree Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA 91.5% 98.4% 98.2%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA (82.2%, 100.0%) (96.3%, 100.0%) (94.8%, 100.0%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 NA Weak Strong Weak
% HS degree White, Non-Hispanic 2021 89.4% 95.1% 97.0% 91.8%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2021 (84.8%, 94.1%) (92.8%, 97.5%) (95.5%, 98.5%) (89.1%, 94.5%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% HS degree All 2018 90.7% 94.0% 90.8% 89.9%
Confidence Interval All 2018 (82.5%, 98.9%) (88.7%, 99.4%) (87.1%, 94.6%) (85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% HS degree Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA 94.8% 89.9%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA (89.4%, 100.0%) (84.0%, 95.8%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 NA NA Weak Strong
% HS degree Hispanic 2018 82.7% NA 85.0% 77.2%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2018 (72.5%, 92.9%) NA (81.5%, 88.5%) (70.9%, 83.5%)
Quality Hispanic 2018 Weak NA Strong Strong
% HS degree Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA 91.5% 98.4% 98.2%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA (82.2%, 100.0%) (96.3%, 100.0%) (94.8%, 100.0%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 NA Weak Strong Weak
% HS degree White, Non-Hispanic 2018 89.4% 95.1% 97.0% 91.8%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2018 (84.8%, 94.1%) (92.8%, 97.5%) (95.5%, 98.5%) (89.1%, 94.5%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of 19- and 20-year-olds in a community who have a high school degree.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Digital access

Metric: Share of households with broadband access in the home
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Digital access 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Share of households with broadband access in the home*
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Digital access 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: This metric represents the share of households with access to broadband in their home.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not available at this time.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Pillar: Rewarding Work

Predictor: Employment Opportunities

Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio 84.0% 86.3% 84.0% 83.2%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)


Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio 84.0% 86.3% 84.0% 83.2%
Confidence Interval (81.6%, 86.4%) (84.7%, 87.9%) (83.0%, 85.1%) (81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 in a given community who are employed.


Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio All 2021 84.0% 86.3% 84.0% 83.2%
Confidence Interval All 2021 (81.6%, 86.4%) (84.7%, 87.9%) (83.0%, 85.1%) (81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 79.4% 80.3% 81.6% 77.8%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 (73.7%, 85.1%) (75.7%, 84.9%) (79.5%, 83.7%) (75.9%, 79.7%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Hispanic 2021 73.7% 76.9% 80.7% 73.5%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2021 (69.7%, 77.6%) (72.7%, 81.1%) (79.7%, 81.6%) (71.7%, 75.3%)
Quality Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 76.7% 79.0% 81.5% 78.3%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 (71.0%, 82.3%) (75.7%, 82.3%) (80.0%, 83.0%) (76.2%, 80.4%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio White, Non-Hispanic 2021 84.8% 84.4% 86.3% 85.4%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2021 (83.6%, 85.9%) (83.6%, 85.2%) (85.7%, 86.8%) (84.8%, 86.1%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio All 2018 84.0% 86.3% 84.0% 83.2%
Confidence Interval All 2018 (81.6%, 86.4%) (84.7%, 87.9%) (83.0%, 85.1%) (81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 79.4% 80.3% 81.6% 77.8%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 (73.7%, 85.1%) (75.7%, 84.9%) (79.5%, 83.7%) (75.9%, 79.7%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Hispanic 2018 73.7% 76.9% 80.7% 73.5%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2018 (69.7%, 77.6%) (72.7%, 81.1%) (79.7%, 81.6%) (71.7%, 75.3%)
Quality Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 76.7% 79.0% 81.5% 78.3%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 (71.0%, 82.3%) (75.7%, 82.3%) (80.0%, 83.0%) (76.2%, 80.4%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Employment to population ratio White, Non-Hispanic 2018 84.8% 84.4% 86.3% 85.4%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2018 (83.6%, 85.9%) (83.6%, 85.2%) (85.7%, 86.8%) (84.8%, 86.1%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 in a given community who are employed.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Access to jobs paying a living wage

Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage 0.74 0.80 1.08 0.99
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2022. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage 0.74 0.80 1.08 0.99
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2022. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: What an average job pays relative to the cost of living in a particular area. The metric is computed by dividing the average earnings for a job in an area by the cost of meeting a family of three’s (for a 1 adult and 2 child household) basic expenses in that area. Ratio values greater than 1 indicate that the average job pays more than the cost of living, while values less than 1 suggest the average job pays less than the cost of living.

For the 2021 metric, we were only able to access the 2022 Living Wage data. We deflated the 2022 data to 2021 using the consumer price index (for all urban consumers), for a correct comparison with the 2021 QCEW.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage 2021 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Ratio of pay to living wage 2018 0.74 0.80 1.08 0.99
Quality 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2018 & 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2018 & 2022. (Time period: 2018 & 2021)
Notes: What an average job pays relative to the cost of living in a particular area. The metric is computed by dividing the average earnings for a job in an area by the cost of meeting a family of three’s (for a 1 adult and 2 child household) basic expenses in that area. Ratio values greater than 1 indicate that the average job pays more than the cost of living, while values less than 1 suggest the average job pays less than the cost of living.

For the 2021 metric, we were only able to access the 2022 Living Wage data. We deflated the 2022 data to 2021 using the consumer price index (for all urban consumers), for a correct comparison with the 2021 QCEW.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Opportunities for Income

Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile $30,798 $37,586 $31,811 $27,354
50th Percentile $70,917 $88,139 $75,476 $73,146
80th Percentile $131,723 $172,226 $155,004 $146,899
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Period: 2021)


Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles*
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile $30,798 $37,586 $31,811 $27,354
50th Percentile $70,917 $88,139 $75,476 $73,146
80th Percentile $131,723 $172,226 $155,004 $146,899
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Period: 2021)
Notes: To identify income percentiles, all households are ranked by income from lowest to highest. The income level threshold for the poorest 20 percent of households is the value at the 20th percentile. The 50th percentile income threshold indicates the median, with half of households earning less and half of households earning more. The income level threshold for the richest 20 percent of households is the value at the 80th percentile. The difference in income between households at the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile illustrates the level of local economic inequality.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not available at this time.


Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles*
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile All 2021 $30,798 $37,586 $31,811 $27,354
50th Percentile All 2021 $70,917 $88,139 $75,476 $73,146
80th Percentile All 2021 $131,723 $172,226 $155,004 $146,899
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 $31,795 $20,768 $19,857 $20,349
50th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 $69,701 $53,359 $48,629 $48,967
80th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 $126,405 $106,904 $95,386 $97,087
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Hispanic 2021 $19,168 $22,405 $24,314 $14,589
50th Percentile Hispanic 2021 $47,490 $52,841 $51,805 $39,901
80th Percentile Hispanic 2021 $100,361 $117,140 $99,284 $87,699
Quality Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 $31,367 $41,157 $31,083 $36,056
50th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 $83,924 $96,979 $84,071 $82,602
80th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 $138,416 $202,093 $168,516 $153,484
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2021 $30,604 $39,427 $39,416 $36,263
50th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2021 $68,701 $87,861 $86,536 $85,351
80th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2021 $129,281 $170,127 $173,219 $158,978
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile All 2018 $30,798 $37,586 $31,811 $27,354
50th Percentile All 2018 $70,917 $88,139 $75,476 $73,146
80th Percentile All 2018 $131,723 $172,226 $155,004 $146,899
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 $31,795 $20,768 $19,857 $20,349
50th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 $69,701 $53,359 $48,629 $48,967
80th Percentile Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 $126,405 $106,904 $95,386 $97,087
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Hispanic 2018 $19,168 $22,405 $24,314 $14,589
50th Percentile Hispanic 2018 $47,490 $52,841 $51,805 $39,901
80th Percentile Hispanic 2018 $100,361 $117,140 $99,284 $87,699
Quality Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 $31,367 $41,157 $31,083 $36,056
50th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 $83,924 $96,979 $84,071 $82,602
80th Percentile Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 $138,416 $202,093 $168,516 $153,484
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
20th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2018 $30,604 $39,427 $39,416 $36,263
50th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2018 $68,701 $87,861 $86,536 $85,351
80th Percentile White, Non-Hispanic 2018 $129,281 $170,127 $173,219 $158,978
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: To identify income percentiles, all households are ranked by income from lowest to highest. The income level threshold for the poorest 20 percent of households is the value at the 20th percentile. The 50th percentile income threshold indicates the median, with half of households earning less and half of households earning more. The income level threshold for the richest 20 percent of households is the value at the 80th percentile. The difference in income between households at the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile illustrates the level of local economic inequality.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not available at this time.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Financial security

Metric: Share with debt in collections
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% with debt 27.9% 22.4% 34.0% 28.3%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time period: 2022)


Metric: Share with debt in collections
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% with debt 27.9% 22.4% 34.0% 28.3%
Confidence Interval (26.6%, 29.2%) (21.6%, 23.2%) (33.3%, 34.6%) (27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time period: 2022)
Notes: The county-level measure captures the share of people in an area with a credit bureau record with debt that has progressed from being past-due to being in collections.


Metric: Share with debt in collections
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% with debt All 2021 27.9% 22.4% 34.0% 28.3%
Confidence Interval All 2021 (26.6%, 29.2%) (21.6%, 23.2%) (33.3%, 34.6%) (27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% with debt Majority Non-White ZIPs 2021 NA NA 48.8% 53.5%
Confidence Interval Majority Non-White ZIPs 2021 NA NA (47.7%, 50.0%) (51.8%, 55.3%)
Quality Majority Non-White ZIPs 2021 NA NA Strong Strong
% with debt Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2021 26.4% 22.4% 20.0% 17.6%
Confidence Interval Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2021 (25.1%, 27.7%) (21.6%, 23.2%) (19.1%, 20.9%) (16.8%, 18.4%)
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% with debt All 2018 27.9% 22.4% 34.0% 28.3%
Confidence Interval All 2018 (26.6%, 29.2%) (21.6%, 23.2%) (33.3%, 34.6%) (27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% with debt Majority Non-White ZIPs 2018 NA NA 48.8% 53.5%
Confidence Interval Majority Non-White ZIPs 2018 NA NA (47.7%, 50.0%) (51.8%, 55.3%)
Quality Majority Non-White ZIPs 2018 NA NA Strong Strong
% with debt Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2018 26.4% 22.4% 20.0% 17.6%
Confidence Interval Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2018 (25.1%, 27.7%) (21.6%, 23.2%) (19.1%, 20.9%) (16.8%, 18.4%)
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: 2018 and 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time periods: 2018 & 2022)
Notes: The county-level measure captures the share of people in an area with a credit bureau record with debt that has progressed from being past-due to being in collections.

For county-level 2018 and 2022 data, “majority” means that at least 60% of residents in a zip code are members of the specified population group.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Wealth-Building Opportunities

Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The percentage to the left of the colon for a given racial group reflects their share of primary-residence housing wealth in a community, and the percentage to the right of the colon reflects the number of households who are headed by a member of that racial group as a share of the community’s total number of households. If the percentage on the left side of the colon is smaller than the percentage on the right side, then that group has less proportionate housing wealth compared to their presence in the community. The greater the gap between these percentages, the more inequality in housing wealth in the community. This metric is based on self-reported housing value, does not account for the extent of mortgage debt, and does not account for other important demographic variations such as differences in age composition across race and ethnic groups, and as such this metric may not fully reflect the size of the actual housing wealth gap.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity 2021 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Hispanic Opportunity 2021 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity 2021 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity 2021 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3% 12.3%:12.3%
Quality 2021 Weak Weak Weak Weak
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity 2018 NA NA NA NA
Quality 2018 NA NA NA NA
Hispanic Opportunity 2018 NA NA NA NA
Quality 2018 NA NA NA NA
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity 2018 NA NA NA NA
Quality 2018 NA NA NA NA
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity 2018 NA NA NA NA
Quality 2018 NA NA NA NA
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time periods: 2018 & 2021)
Notes: The percentage to the left of the colon for a given racial group reflects their share of primary-residence housing wealth in a community, and the percentage to the right of the colon reflects the number of households who are headed by a member of that racial group as a share of the community’s total number of households. If the percentage on the left side of the colon is smaller than the percentage on the right side, then that group has less proportionate housing wealth compared to their presence in the community. The greater the gap between these percentages, the more inequality in housing wealth in the community. This metric is based on self-reported housing value, does not account for the extent of mortgage debt, and does not account for other important demographic variations such as differences in age composition across race and ethnic groups, and as such this metric may not fully reflect the size of the actual housing wealth gap.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Pillar: Healthy Environment and Good Access to Healthcare

Predictor: Access to health services

Metric: Ratio of population per primary care physician
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of people to physicians 1234:1 1234:1 1234:1 1234:1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Area Health Resources File, 2020-21 (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2019)


Metric: Ratio of population per primary care physician+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of people to physicians 1234:1 1234:1 1234:1 1234:1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Area Health Resources File, 2020-21 (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2019)
Notes: The ratio represents the number of people served by one primary care physician in a county. It assumes the population is equally distributed across physicians and does not account for actual physician patient load. Missing values are reported for counties with population greater than 2,000 and 0 primary care physicians. The metric does not include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or other primary care providers who are not physicians.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Neonatal health

Metric: Share with low birth weight
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Low birth weight 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 8.1%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2020)


Metric: Share with low birth weight
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Low birth weight 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 8.1%
Confidence Interval (6.5%, 8.4%) (7.0%, 8.3%) (7.1%, 8.0%) (7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2020)
Notes: The share of babies born weighing less than 5 pounds 8 ounces (<2,500 grams) out of all births with available birthweight information.


Metric: Share with low birth weight
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% Low birth weight All 2021 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 8.1%
Confidence Interval All 2021 (6.5%, 8.4%) (7.0%, 8.3%) (7.1%, 8.0%) (7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality All 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 8.0% 11.9% 13.0% 12.8%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 (4.2%, 11.7%) (8.2%, 15.6%) (11.2%, 14.9%) (11.2%, 14.5%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2021 Marginal Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Hispanic 2021 8.1% 8.6% 7.4% 8.5%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2021 (5.9%, 10.3%) (6.1%, 11.2%) (6.8%, 8.1%) (7.4%, 9.6%)
Quality Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 6.7% 10.1% 8.7% 8.8%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 (3.1%, 10.4%) (7.4%, 12.7%) (7.3%, 10.2%) (7.1%, 10.6%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2021 Marginal Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight White, Non-Hispanic 2021 7.2% 7.0% 6.2% 6.0%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2021 (6.1%, 8.4%) (6.2%, 7.7%) (5.6%, 6.8%) (5.3%, 6.7%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2021 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight All 2018 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 8.1%
Confidence Interval All 2018 (6.5%, 8.4%) (7.0%, 8.3%) (7.1%, 8.0%) (7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 8.0% 11.9% 13.0% 12.8%
Confidence Interval Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 (4.2%, 11.7%) (8.2%, 15.6%) (11.2%, 14.9%) (11.2%, 14.5%)
Quality Black, Non-Hispanic 2018 Marginal Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Hispanic 2018 8.1% 8.6% 7.4% 8.5%
Confidence Interval Hispanic 2018 (5.9%, 10.3%) (6.1%, 11.2%) (6.8%, 8.1%) (7.4%, 9.6%)
Quality Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 6.7% 10.1% 8.7% 8.8%
Confidence Interval Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 (3.1%, 10.4%) (7.4%, 12.7%) (7.3%, 10.2%) (7.1%, 10.6%)
Quality Other Races and Ethnicities 2018 Marginal Strong Strong Strong
% Low birth weight White, Non-Hispanic 2018 7.2% 7.0% 6.2% 6.0%
Confidence Interval White, Non-Hispanic 2018 (6.1%, 8.4%) (6.2%, 7.7%) (5.6%, 6.8%) (5.3%, 6.7%)
Quality White, Non-Hispanic 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2018 & 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2018 & 2020)
Notes: The share of babies born weighing less than 5 pounds 8 ounces (<2,500 grams) out of all births with available birthweight information. Race and ethnicity is based on the mother’s characteristics.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Environmental quality

Metric: Air quality index
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index 34.2 42.6 56.4 66.3
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency’s AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2017 National Emissions Inventory data). (Time period: 2017-18)


Metric: Air quality index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index 34.2 42.6 56.4 66.3
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency’s AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2017 National Emissions Inventory data). (Time period: 2017-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Air quality index+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index All 2018 34.2 42.6 56.4 66.3
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Air quality index Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 12.5 NA 55.3 53.7
Quality Majority Non-White Tracts 2018 Strong NA Strong Strong
Air quality index Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 38.3 43.8 57.4 71.5
Quality Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Air quality index No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 21.7 32.0 56.5 63.4
Quality No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment data, 2014 and AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2014 & 2017 National Emissions Inventory data); US Census Bureau’s 2014 & 2018 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2010-14 & 2014-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.

‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group. ‘High poverty’ means that 40% or more of people in a census tract live in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Air quality index+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index All 2018 34.2 42.6 56.4 66.3
Quality All 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Air quality index High Poverty Tracts 2018 10.3 NA 50.2 51.5
Quality High Poverty Tracts 2018 Strong NA Strong Strong
Air quality index Not High Poverty Tracts 2018 36.3 42.7 57.3 67.8
Quality Not High Poverty Tracts 2018 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment data, 2014 and AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2014 & 2017 National Emissions Inventory data); US Census Bureau’s 2014 & 2018 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2010-14 & 2014-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.

‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group. ‘High poverty’ means that 40% or more of people in a census tract live in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Safety from Trauma

Metric: Deaths due to injury per 100,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Trauma 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2016-20, drawn from the National Vital Statistics System (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2016-20)


Metric: Deaths due to injury per 100,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Trauma 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Confidence Interval (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1)
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2016-20, drawn from the National Vital Statistics System (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: Injury deaths is the number of deaths from planned (e.g., homicide or suicide) and unplanned (e.g., motor vehicle deaths) injuries per 100,000 people. Deaths are counted in the county of residence for the person who died, rather than the county where the death occurred. A missing value is reported for counties with fewer than 10 injury deaths in the time frame.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Pillar: Responsible and Just Governance

Predictor: Political participation

Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% voting 62.2% 72.6% 61.6% 63.1%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time period: 2016-20)


Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% voting 62.2% 72.6% 61.6% 63.1%
Quality Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the share of the citizen voting-age population that voted in the most recent presidential election.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote+
Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
% voting 2020 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3%
Quality 2020 Weak Weak Weak Weak
% voting 2016 62.2% 72.6% 61.6% 63.1%
Quality 2016 Strong Strong Strong Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2016 & 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the share of the citizen voting-age population that voted in the most recent presidential election.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Descriptive Representation

Metric: Ratio of the share of local elected officials of a racial or ethnic group to the share of residents of the same racial or ethnic group.Part of this metric is shown. See the notes for information on finalizing this metric.+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Other Races/Ethnicities __:12% __:12% __:12% __:12%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Black, non-Hispanic __:12% __:12% __:12% __:12%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Hispanic __:12% __:12% __:12% __:12%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
White, non-Hispanic __:12% __:12% __:12% __:12%
Quality Weak Weak Weak Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: Shown are the share of that racial or ethnic group in your community. The community will need to calculate the missing percentages in order to complete the descriptive representation metric. See the Planning Guide (pg. 27) on how to calculate the missing percentage. Say that of your 10 elected officials, nine are White, non-Hispanic and your community’s population is half White, non-Hispanic, the metric will read as “90.0%:50.0%.” If the share of local officials is higher than the share of people in the community, then this group is over-represented. If the share of local officials is lower than the share of people in the community, then this group is under-represented. We are presenting this as a ratio of percentages because it provides important context.

The quality index reflects the data quality only of the given value.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Safety from Crime

Metric: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Violent crime 331 128 404 265
Property crime 1,555 1,367 3,030 2,315
Quality Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Violent crime 331 128 404 265
Property crime 1,555 1,367 3,030 2,315
Quality Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: Rates are calculated as the number of reported crimes against property or people per 100,000 people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if they are available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Visit here for more details about this predictor.


Predictor: Just policing

Metric: Juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Juvenile arrest rate 3,056.0 2,918.4 4,754.4 3,108.2
Quality Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)


Metric: Juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles+
Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Juvenile arrest rate 3,056.0 2,918.4 4,754.4 3,108.2
Quality Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The number of arrests of people aged 10 to 17, for any crime or status offense, per 100,000 people of that age. Because people can be arrested multiple times, the data reports the number of arrests and not people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if it is available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Metric: Juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles+
Group Year Northampton, Pennsylvania Bucks, Pennsylvania Travis, Texas Hartford, Connecticut
Juvenile arrest rate All 2021 3,056.0 2,918.4 4,754.4 3,108.2
Quality All 2021 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate Black 2021 17,097.8 25,806.5 13,303.2 8,789.0
Quality Black 2021 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate Other Races 2021 185.9 412.3 201.0 170.6
Quality Other Races 2021 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate White 2021 2,581.0 2,631.1 5,101.3 2,800.8
Quality White 2021 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate All 2018 3,056.0 2,918.4 4,754.4 3,108.2
Quality All 2018 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate Black 2018 17,097.8 25,806.5 13,303.2 8,789.0
Quality Black 2018 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate Other Races 2018 185.9 412.3 201.0 170.6
Quality Other Races 2018 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate White 2018 2,581.0 2,631.1 5,101.3 2,800.8
Quality White 2018 Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The number of arrests of people aged 10 to 17, for any crime or status offense, per 100,000 people of that age. Because people can be arrested multiple times, the data reports the number of arrests and not people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if it is available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.

Ethnicity is inconsistently collected and often missing in the data. Those of multiple races are only included in ‘Other Races.’

The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.


Additional Notes on Data

Data Quality

“Strong” indicates that the metric is measured with adequate accuracy and sample size.
“Marginal” indicates that there are known shortcomings of the data for this metric for this community, and the metric should be used with caution.
“Weak” indicates that although the metric could be computed for this community, we have serious concerns about how accurately it is measured for this community and do not recommend its use. Instead, we recommend seeking more local data sources for this metric.



Confidence Intervals

Confidence intervals shown are 95 percent.
* This confidence interval is not available at this time.
+ A confidence interval is not applicable.
Lower/Upper bound: The data used to construct this metric do not lend themselves to conventional confidence intervals. The value of the metric shown represents are best estimate; the lower and upper bounds represent alternative estimates of the metric under different assumptions about missing data.

“NC” in fields for confidence intervals or lower/upper bounds means that we are not able to calculate this because the underlying data lack variation.

Missing and Suppressed Values

“NA” in fields for metric values and data quality values indicates that the data are suppressed due to sample sizes or because that element is not applicable to that community (e.g., no zip code in the county is majority non-white).


Version: 2023-04-10 08:56:10